Cavan): I move:
That a sum not exceeding £5,357,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1974, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission, including a grant-in-aid.
I propose to follow the usual procedure and to take the Votes for Lands and Forestry together. Accordingly, in my opening remarks I shall refer to Votes 35 and 36 and at the conclusion of the debate the motion in respect of Vote 35 will be put to the House. Vote 36 will then be formally put.
Regarding the Lands Vote it has been the custom each year to make special comment on those items in the Vote which reflect a significant change from the previous year's provision. The fact that the present Estimate relates to a nine-month period renders direct comparison with the previous year's figures difficult but in those subheads where, allowing for the shorter period, an appreciable change is evident, I shall explain the reasons for the increase or decrease as the case may be. I will then review the activities of the Land Commission during the year ended 31st March last and go on to deal more fully with a number of recent developments in the sphere of land settlement.
Subhead A, which provides for salaries, wages and allowances, would seem to call for no special comment, the amount provided for being roughly proportionate to last year's provision.
I might perhaps mention that I have recently arranged for a strengthening of the staffing position both on the outdoor, that is the inspectorate side, and on the indoor side in the critical acquisition and resale sections. Deputies from rural constituencies will be aware of the persistent and ever-increasing pressure on the Land Commission to have lands acquired and speedily disposed of and, indeed, quite a few Deputies have raised in the House the matter of staffing of local offices. I am glad, therefore, to be able to say that steps have been taken to have the position improved. Fourteen additional inspectors have already been appointed in fact, and recruitment is continuing.
Deputies may be wondering as to the reason for the pronounced drop in the provision under subhead B2, which relates to charges by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for postal services and for the handling of stores. The decrease here is due to adjustments being made for overestimation of charges in previous years.
The figure estimated for subhead C is proportionately greater than that for 1973-74. It reflects the increase in the number of cases that are being contested in the Land Commission at acquisition stage and before the Appeal Tribunal on the question of price. On the other hand, costs of recovering unpaid instalments of land purchase annuity are down due to the continuing satisfactory position in regard to collection of annuities and the revised procedures for recovery being implemented by the Land Commission.
The moneys required under subhead D are in the nature of statutory commitments. In the main they represent the taxpayers' contribution towards the service of land purchase debt accumulated since 1923 on both tenanted and untenanted land. Of the total subhead provision, some £701,580 will be utilised to make good deficiencies in the land bond fund arising from the statutory halving of annuities under the Land Act, 1933. As Deputies will be aware, all allottees in congested areas, together with migrants and displaced employees getting holdings in non-congested areas, get the benefit of the halving of annuities. It is clear then that the amount required under this subhead is affected annually in accordance with the progress being made in land settlement. The purchase instalments of all new allottees in the categories which I have mentioned are, as I said, halved with consequent additional deficiencies in the land bond fund, which have to be made good out of this subhead. In an ordinary year the bulk of the amount in this subhead is paid to the land bond fund in two instalments but in the nine-month period only one such instalment will fall due. It is appropriate for me to refer here to the order which I made in October, 1973, extending the scheduled congested areas to include the three counties of Cavan, Monaghan and Longford. This order had the effect of restoring to the counties mentioned the benefit of revision of annuity. It also entitled eligible smallholders in those three counties to participate in the self-migration loans scheme which is administered by the Land Commission. I shall have more to say about this particular scheme later on.
Subhead F is to provide for any deficit between the income realised on the letting of lands on the hands of the Land Commission and the amount required to pay rates, herds, caretakers and so on and to service the land bonds issued for the purchase of such lands. For some years it had been anticipated that income from lands on hands would not be sufficient to cover the outgoings mentioned but this has not happened and the fact that only a token sum is estimated for the period to December next reflects to some extent the buoyancy of income resulting from the present high level of letting rents.
I am happy to be able to say that a record sum of £2¼ million is available in the current nine-months period for the purchase of land for cash. This is a manifest index of the Government's desire to provide adequate resources so that the work of land structural improvement can be not just maintained but liberally extended. The sum provided covers ordinary cash purchases by the Land Commission in the open market and also purchases under the new retirement scheme—all of which must, of course, be in cash. The greater the use of cash as a means of payment for lands acquired by voluntary process, the less will be the need for compulsory acquisition and the use of land bonds.
Purchases for cash are, of course, now treated as a capital item and the provision is being made by way of grant-in-aid under a separate subhead (G1), a procedure which will enable any part of the moneys issued but unexpended to be used in the following year. This will facilitate forward planning and the orderly regulation of transactions.
Subhead G2 is a new subhead. It provides the funds for the life annuities which will be set up and the premiums which will fall for payment in the period ending 31st December, 1974, under the new retirement scheme introduced recently in compliance with EEC Directive 160.
Subhead G3 contains the items covered by subhead G2 in the 1973-74 Estimates. It provides for the payment of existing annuities under the old retirement scheme, advances under the self-migration loans scheme, the payment in cash of compensation for tenancy interests resumed on the small outstanding residue of CDB estates and for the payment by the Land Commission of auctioneers' commission on relevant purchases of land for cash and land bonds. I would like to refer briefly here to the self-migration loans scheme, which was introduced under section 5 of the Land Act, 1965, for the benefit of smallholders in the scheduled congested areas. As Deputies will be aware, this scheme has not been a success and is now virtually moribund. Clearly its provisions are no longer realistic having regard to the prevailing high land prices. It did not "take on" and one must doubt whether it has any merit or appeal in the current situation.
Deputies will expect me to comment on subhead I, under which provision is made for the money required to erect houses and out-offices and to construct the fences, roads, drains and so on found necessary in the course of estate improvement work. Over the past few years many improvements have been made in Land Commission buildings and these have been the subject of favourable comment both in this House and elsewhere. Modern farming methods demand the adoption of up-to-date out-office designs and it is only proper therefore that new holdings created by the Land Commission should be provided with farm buildings of a high standard. I can say that the standard already achieved will be maintained; indeed Land Commission house and out-office plans are constantly being reviewed to ensure that they incorporate the latest developments in regard to design, layout and construction.
The scheme under which advances are made to farmers to supplement grants from the Department of Local Government for the erection of new houses and for reconstruction work on existing houses is also financed under subhead 1 and loans amounting to £41,486 were authorised during the year.
I have now concluded the usual commentary on the principal subheads of the Lands Vote and I propose to continue by reviewing the main activities of the Land Commission in the past year.
On the acquisition side, the aggregate area inspected during the year was 36,267 acres, while the total intake of land amounted to about 20,400 acres. The total area in the acquisition machine at 31st March, 1974, amounted to some 79,500 acres.
As regards land settlement for the year, the total area allotted among 1,946 allottees was about 35,600 acres. The acreage distributed included the provision of 49 fully-equipped holdings comprising 3,493 acres for migrants and the rearrangement of 473 fragmented holdings. In all, 52 new dwellinghouses and 61 new out-offices were provided for tenants and allottees during the year.
In the course of land settlement work £5,790 was provided by way of grants for nine displaced employees who were not considered suitable for allotments.
The rate of vesting of holdings and allotments continues to increase progressively and last year about 3,840 holdings, parcels and rights of turbary were dealt with. The number of tenanted holdings—including those on CDB estates—outstanding for vesting had, at 31st March, 1974, been reduced to about 2,000. These residual holdings, situated for the most part in western congested counties, now represent the remaining hard core of difficult tenanted land cases and their release for final vesting is at present getting special attention.
As I have already said, the position as regards collection of land annuities continues satisfactory. Out of a collectible total of £2,978,812 for the year, the amount actually collected by 31st March, 1974, was £2,863,903, over 96 per cent.
In passing, I might mention that 1973 marked the commencement of the amortisation, that is final repayment, of the first advances made under the Land Act, 1903, and which were repayable by annuities over a period of 69 years from the date of advance. An increasing number of these advances will amortise each year for some time to come.
The control of the purchase of land by "non-qualified persons"—principally non-nationals—continues to be an important part of the work of the Land Commission. During the past year—apart from what might be called unobjectionable transactions, for example, those (a) arising solely from mortgage interests, (b) involving areas not exceeding five acres and (c) representing transfers between one non-citizen (individual or company) and another—the total acreage in respect of which the consent of the Land Commission, pursuant to section 45 of the 1965 Land Act, was given to the vesting of interests in land in non-qualified persons was 4,707 acres. A substantial proportion of the acreage involved consisted of the types of property which could hold no attraction for the ordinary Irish purchaser.
I need scarcely say that the future operation of the Land Commission will be governed to a large extent by the success or otherwise of the EEC retirement scheme. Deputies, especially those from rural constituencies, will be aware that on 1st May last I announced that I had made regulations introducing the new farmers' retirement scheme for the implementation of EEC Directive 160 on encouragement to leave farming. The objective of the scheme is to enable farmers, particularly those in the elderly age group— over 55—who for one reason or another are not happily or profitably engaged in agriculture and who wish to give up farming, to retire in dignity and financial security. It is a fact that in modern society most workers can retire at a certain age and enjoy a pension which will keep them in reasonable comfort for the rest of their lives. For a variety of reasons this privilege has not been enjoyed by the farming community and there must be many farmers who by reason of age, infirmity or unprofitable holdings would like to call it a day but hitherto could not do so because they did not have the necessary financial security to enable them to enjoy what should be the bonus years of a man's life. I am glad to have had the privilege of introducing a scheme which, I hope, will remedy this situation. For the first time in our history a farmer who wishes to retire can do so with a guaranteed income for the rest of his life provided he satisfies the necessary conditions. In this way land will be made available to neighbouring farmers determined to advance their agricultural operations under the modernisation scheme being implemented by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
The details of the retirement scheme have been widely publicised in a comprehensive informational publicity campaign designed to bring it to the attention of the farming community throughout the country. Prominent advertisements were placed in the daily and provincial newspapers; copies of an attractively produced informational booklet were distributed widely to farming organisations, rural groups and opinion leaders, including Members of the Oireachtas.
Posters are in display in post offices, Garda stations and other public places. I myself have spoken about it on radio and television and officials of my Department have attended meetings arranged by farming organisations to explain the detailed provisions of the scheme. It was the theme of a special Land Commission exhibit at the Spring Show and attracted a considerable amount of interest. The exhibit was later presented at a number of agricultural shows in different parts of the country.
There should, therefore, be no doubt or confusion in the public mind about the salient features of the scheme. Nevertheless, as this is the first debate on the Lands Estimate since the scheme was introduced and as many Deputies will wish to have a full discussion of the scheme I will outline, for the record, the main features, after which I will deal with certain aspects which call for special comment. Briefly, any farmer is eligible for the benefits of the scheme provided his main occupation is farming and provided his holding does not exceed 45 adjusted acres, that is 45 acres of good agricultural land or its equivalent in land of mixed quality. A person is deemed to have farming as his main occupation if he has owned or, where the land is not worked by the owner, occupied the holding continuously for the five years prior to the application and during this period has devoted at least 50 per cent of his time to and derived at least 50 per cent of his earned income from agricultural work on the holding. The upper limit of 45 adjusted acres can be exceeded—
(1) where in the opinion of the Land Commission the holding is required for farmers in the same locality whose approved development plans provide for additional land and there are no other suitable holdings under 45 adjusted acres available for this purpose, or
(2) where the applicant can prove to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that his earned income from the holding is significantly lower than the earned income derivable from a farm of 45 adjusted acres under normal methods of husbandry and management.
There is no upper limit for a disabled farmer whose main occupation is farming—or for a widow who becomes the owner of a holding following the death of her husband and for whom farming is her main occupation, provided she has—or she and her late husband between them have— worked in agriculture on the holding for at least five years prior to her application.
In order to benefit under the scheme an applicant must sell the holding or lease it for a minimum of 12 years, to a farmer whose approved development plan under the farm modernisation scheme provides for additional land or he can sell direct to the Land Commission. He must also undertake to discontinue commercial farming and not to hold or take any agricultural holding or employ anyone in agricultural activity. If the farmer is married, his wife must give a similar undertaking. The benefits available to a successful applicant are as follows:
Under 55 years—A premium of 10 per cent of the purchase price subject to a maximum of £1,500 or twice the annual lease rent subject to a maximum of £3,000.
55 years and over—Premium as already stated plus a life annuity of £600 for a married person or £400 for a single person, widow or widower.
These benefits, of course, are in addition to the purchase price or lease rent of the lands.
Apart from the main financial provisions there are many additional benefits—
All lands bought under the scheme by the Land Commission will be paid for in cash. The annuity may be increased from time to time to take account of increases in the cost of living.
A grant of up to £100 may be paid to defray the cost of settling title.
Where the holding is sold to the Land Commission the vendor's costs and expenses, when agreed, will be paid by the Land Commission.
Where a married applicant in receipt of an annuity dies the spouse will be entitled to a life annuity of £400.
Applicants of 55 years of age or over who sell their lands to the Land Commission can if they wish convert the sale price and premium into an actuarial annuity—in addition to the life annuity of £600 or £400 already mentioned.
If the retiring farmer wishes, he can keep the dwellinghouse he has lived in and up to two acres around it: this is an important consideration for the status and emotional well-being of the farmer concerned as it means that he has not to break with the friends and neighbours with whom he has lived all his life.
There is one other additional benefit of considerable significance. A retiring farmer can continue to work in agriculture either permanently or casually provided, of course, that he does not engage in commercial farming in his own right. The directive lays down that a farmer who avails of the benefits of the scheme should cease all agricultural activity. For myself I regarded this as an unreasonable provision; it would mean that a retired farmer could not even help a neighbouring farmer in times of seasonal pressure. Such a restriction would be bad both for the psychological well-being of the person in question and for the agricultural economy in general where there is often a death of labour. I arranged that this point be presented strongly to the Commission in Brussels and I am glad to report that they accepted our case.
I would now like to deal with certain aspects of the scheme which have given rise to misunderstandings. One of these is the question of priority access to land made available under the scheme. The position here is that, as required by the EEC Directive 160, farmers with development plans approved under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries modernisation scheme will have priority on lands made available by the retirement scheme where their plans confirm that extra land is needed. The retirement scheme and the farm modernisation scheme are very closely interlinked and arrangements have been made both at local and at headquarter levels to ensure the closest liaison in the administration of the two schemes.
A certain amount of anxiety has been expressed throughout the country about the position of a class of farmers now designated as transitional farmers. These are farmers whose income is below the current comparable income but who are not yet in a position to undertake a development plan and do not want to retire. It has been alleged that this class of farmer will not qualify for land released under the retirement scheme: farmers who fall into this category are not precluded from becoming development farmers either after a period of expansion of their existing resources or through acquiring additional land.
It will be usually the smaller farmer who can put up a development plan to show that he needs extra land to get the comparable income that will be considered for priority allocation of land released under the retirement scheme. Perhaps it is the use of EEC terms that has led to the fog and confusion around this point. It should be borne in mind that, as far as development farmers are concerned, it is only the man whose approved plan confirms that extra land is needed to achieve the comparable income who will be eligible for consideration for priority access to land released under the retirement scheme. Where a development farmer is capable of attaining comparable income on his existing lands, the question of providing extra land will not, of course, arise.
There will inevitably be small farmers who, even with the aids available under the modernisation scheme, will not for one reason or another move on to development status. They have the choice of remaining in farming or retiring under my scheme. If they wish to remain on, they will continue to have access to extra land under the traditional land settlement programme of the Land Commission provided they are adjudged worthy and deserving applicants. In regard to land released under the retirement scheme, however, their claims will have to take second place to those of modernising farmers needing extra land—but, if there is land left over after the requirements of modernising farmers are met, or if there are no modernising farmers in the locality, then the ordinary small holder can be considered.
In these instances, however, subvention of retirement annuities from EEC funds will not be forthcoming. Another matter on which there is some misunderstanding is that of family settlements. The benefits of the scheme are not available to farmers merely to facilitate family settlements or to ease succession difficulties. The only instances where a transaction involving a family transfer of lands would come under the Scheme is where the transferee is already the holder of land in respect of which he has an approved development plan providing for the acquisition of additional land and the holding being transferred to him is suitable for this purpose.
The retirement scheme is, of course, entirely voluntary and I must emphasise that there is no question of trying to pressgang anyone into accepting it. Farmers are free to take part in it or not as they choose. This is no sinister effort to attempt to propose a doctrinaire or unrealistic solution for our rural problems. The principle behind the scheme is purely and simply to enable the farmer to do what every other worker can do in his later years, and that is, to retire with dignity and security. I do not think anybody can deny that this is a worthy and decent objective. But the choice is his and his alone.
Fully conscious of the failure of the previous pension scheme under the 1965 Act, I was particularly concerned in formulating this scheme to ensure that the financial incentives would be pitched at a really compelling level—hence the generous annuities for life of £600, married, and £400, single. These incentives are considerably in excess of the EEC guideline amounts of £420 and £280 respectively and will, I hope, be regarded as a clear indication of concern for the social well-being of farmers and my Government's firm support for a truly dynamic structural reform programme in this country in the years ahead.
Indeed, relative to our national resources the incentives are up to the highest level on offer in any member state of the Community both as to the amount and duration of the annuities. The EEC directive only required that annuities be payable between the ages of 55 and 65, and some member states have confined their annuities to this period. In the Irish scheme the annuities will continue for the lifetime of the recipient. To point up the monetary worth arising under the scheme I take the instance of a married farmer over age 55 leasing for 12 years 40 acres at £40 per acre; in the first year he will receive £5,200 being £3,000 premium, £1,600 rent, £600 pension; for the next 11 years £2,200 per year, being £1,600 rent, £600 pension and thereafter, £600 per year for life plus disposal right of the lands. It is confidently expected that subvention of the pension annuities from EEC funds will be at a 65 per cent rate but only up to age of 65 and the subvention will be limited to 65 per cent of the EEC guideline amounts of £420 and £280. After that the full cost of the annuity must be borne by the State. In the case of the premium, which is also pitched at a very generous level, there will be no EEC contribution at all and the full cost must be met from our own Exchequer.
The annuities will be paid in what I would like to describe as real money because, as I have already said, there is provision for increasing them periodically to take account of cost of living increases: in other words, the scheme contains an inflation buffer. The married farmer can be reassured in the knowledge that in the event of his death his widow will continue to get an annuity for her lifetime.
I hope I have dealt with the scheme in sufficient depth to enable Deputies to appreciate the vital role which its operation will play in the future land settlement policy of this country. I am satisfied that the scheme is a highly attractive one and I am confident that its generous terms will make it acceptable throughout the country. In the interests of structural reform in agriculture it is imperative that the scheme evoke a substantial response. Already the indications are that it is being well received: the number of applications received in the half year since promulgation of the scheme is close to 1,000 and already 74 applicants have been adjudged eligible. Most of these—65 in all—want to sell to the Land Commission and in these cases purchase proceedings are in progress. To date, 61 applications have been refused because they did not fulfil some of the basic conditions of the scheme. The remaining applications are at various stages of the examination process.
Before concluding it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge again the very real help and assistance given to me by the farming organisations while the scheme was being formulated. I, with my advisers, have had lengthy discussions with these organisations and I have gladly accepted and incorporated in the final product many useful suggestions put forward by them. I will be relying on these organisations to publicise the attractions of the scheme throughout the rural community and to foster and encourage applications from suitably qualified farmers.
Rural Deputies, too, can make their contribution by supporting and advocating the scheme energetically throughout their constituencies and I will be relying on their support to make the scheme a winner. I am only too well aware of the psychological barriers which will have to be breached if the scheme is to be a real success— the strong bond that ties the farmer to his land, a mixture of tradition, status and prestige. That is why the incentives have been pitched at such a liberal and compelling level. What we must do is to appeal to any farmer who is not happy with his present position to study the terms of the scheme very carefully and assess in relation to his own circumstances what it has to offer for him. It is my sincere hope that the retirement scheme, in conjunction with its partnering farm modernisation scheme, will be truly effective in this new and voluntary campaign towards securing an abiding and lasting improvement in agricultural land structure in this country.
Turning to the Forestry Vote the provision here, as in the case of the Lands Vote, is for the nine months April to December, 1974, and the net provision for this period is £6,010,000. This nine-month Estimate is not comparable with last year's 12-month Estimate of £7,812,000 but an Estimate for the 12 months April, 1974 to March, 1975, prepared on the same basis as the nine-month Estimate under discussion, shows that the net provision would have been £8,108,000, an increase of £296,000 compared with last year's Estimate. This increase which, of course, is reflected in the Estimate under debate is mainly due to the 15th-round increases in salaries and wages and to price increases for oils, fertilisers and other materials amounting to £1,070,000, partly offset by increased provision under Appropriations-in-Aid—subhead J— of £614,000, and a reduction in the provision for Subhead CI, Acquisition of Land, of £160,000.
In the course of what follows I do not intend to examine in detail the following subheads of the Vote which provide for about the same level of activity as in the full year's Estimate for 1973-74. They are:
Subhead A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances at £1,790,000; Subhead B2, Post Office Services at £46,000; Subhead C3, Sawmilling at £57,000; Subhead E, Forestry Education at £45,000; Subhead F, John F. Kennedy Park at £34,000 and Subhead I, Agency Advisory and Special Services at £45,000.
Subhead BI, Travelling and Incidental Expenses at £438,000, shows a higher level of average expenditure than the 1973-74 provision. The increase reflected in the nine-month Estimate is mainly due to increased travelling allowances but includes also increased subsistence costs and some increase in the level of travelling arising from the extension of the State forest area.
Subhead CI is the grant-in-aid for acquisition of land. The balance remaining in the fund at 1st April, 1974 was £834,431 and, in view of the size of this balance, I am providing in this estimate a sum of £250,000 only, giving a total sum available for land acquisition for the nine months ending 31st December, 1974, of £1,084,431.
The gross areas acquired in the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, 12-monthly periods ending 31st March, were 14,629 hectares, 36,148 acres, and 9,816 hectares, 24,256 acres, respectively.
The difficulty in reaching price agreement for the purchase of land for State forestry and the trend towards a slower rate of closing of sales referred to by me in my speech on the Estimate for last year have become even more acute. These adverse trends are due mainly to unsettled conditions in the general market for land as well as to a hesitancy on the part of owners in offering lands at all for forestry; owners are obviously reluctant to sell until a clearer picture emerges of the effects of the various EEC Directives in the area of agriculture.
In these conditions it is very difficult to predict future acquisition prospects. Deputies may rest assured, however, that no effort is being spared in our endeavour to attain our acquisition targets.
So far as availability of money is concerned I should state that the total of £1,084,431 available for land acquisition in the nine months ending 31st December, 1974 is the highest figure made available for any similar period so that purchase of land has not in any way been inhibited by lack of funds.
I should say that even if a temporary setback in the level of land acquisition, arising from the factors outlined above, should occur, the existing reserve of lands on hand would enable my Department to maintain the present level of planting for at least the next few years.
Subhead C2, Forest Development and Management, at £4,830,000 is the main expenditure subhead in this Vote. The major provisions in the subhead relate to the raising of nursery stock in the State forest nurseries, the establishment costs of all new plantations including ground preparation and fencing, road and bridge construction, the development of facilities for public recreation in our forests, the purchase and maintenance of forest machinery and the hire of suitable machinery from outside sources, the general cost of maintaining and protecting all our existing forest plantations, and, finally, the cost of such timber felling and conversion as we undertake by direct labour in the forests. The total provision for the current year at £4,830,000 is the equivalent of a sum of £6,332,000 for a full year which would represent an increase of £805,000 on the provision of £5,527,000 for 1973-74.
The provisions for State Forest Nurseries, subhead C2 (1), at £280,000; New Roads and Buildings, subhead C2 (3), at £390,000 and Timber Conversion, subhead C2 (7), at £290,000 cover much the same level of activity as obtained in these operations in recent years but reflect also increases in wages and prices.
Subhead C2 (2), at £1,390,000 is in respect of the Establishment of Plantations. The target of planting 10,000 hectares was achieved in 1973-74. Provision is being made under this head for preliminary work in connection with a full planting programme of 10,000 hectares though much of the actual planting will be undertaken in the period January to March, 1975, which does not come within the scope of this Estimate. Apart from the ever-increasing labour costs there is a further heavy increase, equivalent to £132,000 in a full year, in the cost of manures which have more than doubled in price due to external factors. Inevitably in State forestry we are dealing with less fertile areas and the use of manures— particularly ground mineral phosphate —is a feature of afforestation in Ireland. In view of the increasing cost of artifical manures a special examination has been made with a view to securing the utmost economy in their use but a heavy increase in overall cost is inevitable.
Subhead C2 (4), Amenity Development in the State Forests, at £170,000 represents an increase of £55,000 for a full year on the provision for 1973-74. Here, again, the increase is largely a reflection of rising costs, but the amount sought will cope also with a continuing improvement in visitor facilities and provide in part for a major amenity development at Killykeen, County Cavan, where work has already commenced on a forest park project. This project, which I expect will be completed by mid-1976, will provide full visitor facilities, including a restaurant and shop, in one of the most picturesque spots on Lough Oughter which forms part of the Erne system. The overall cost of the project, estimated at over £100,000 will be spread over a three-year period.
On amenity generally, Deputies will be interested to know that, at a conservative estimate, more than a million people visited the State forests in the year ended 31st March last. The forest parks, of course, claimed the major share of this attendance, but in all parts of the country tourists and our own people have shown their appreciation of the "open forest" policy by visiting even the most out-of-the-way of the 300 areas that are now open to public access.
Under Subhead C2 (5), the provision of £750,000 for Mechanical Equipment for Forest Development and Management covers the purchase, hire and maintenance of machinery. Again, the increase in the level of spending as compared with 1973-74 is mainly due to labour costs but a further impost is the increased cost of fuel. Subhead C2 (6), General Forest Management, at £1,560,000 is the most labour-intensive item of the C.2 subhead, accounting for almost 40 per cent of the total labour provision, and thus the increased labour costs are most in evidence here. The ever-increasing forest estate which at 31st March, 1974, stood at 320,000 hectares, 790,000 acres, inevitably involves some increase in maintenance costs also. Apart from labour costs, this subhead provides for protection of forests, building and road repairs and other miscellaneous matters necessary to the day-to-day upkeep of the forests.
With regard to protection, the incidence of forest fires continues to give cause for concern. In 1973 fire destroyed 293 hectares valued at £27,500, while in 1974 in the months of April and May alone a further 530 hectares of forest valued at £52,000 were destroyed by fire. Even though this is not the danger season, I would again appeal for the utmost care in the lighting of fires in the vicinity of forests and also in the discarding of cigarettes and matches. Let me repeat also the assurance which I gave last year to the hill farmer who wishes to burn to improve grazing that if he notifies the Garda and the local forester in writing and co-operates with the local forestry staff in agreeing a date for the burning there will be no question of a prosecution should his moor burning get out of hand and cause damage to a State forest.
The State forests are, after all, the people's own investment, providing wealth for the future as well as produce for industry and pleasure in their recreational facilities in the present. It is in everybody's interest that they are not damaged through lack of care.
Subhead D, Grants for Afforestation purposes, at £30,000, is in line with the increased level of planting grant provided for the first time in 1972-73. Frankly, the response, in terms of new planting, to the increased level of grant, has been disappointing. A total of only 246 hectares, 608 acres, was approved for planting grant in 1973-74 against 300 hectares the previous year. The present reluctance to plant may reflect the general caution of landowners in undertaking planting on their lands pending clarification of their ultimate position under EEC directives as I mentioned earlier. The position is being kept under review.
Subhead G, £60,000 relates to Game Development and Management. The main expenditure under the subhead is on grants to regional game councils to assist game development schemes throughout the country. These schemes, which are formulated and operated in consultation with the Department's advisory staff, relate principally to restocking programmes, habitat development and control of predators. Some financial provision for tourist projects, that is, the provision of game shooting facilities for visiting sportsmen under projects sponsored jointly by my Department and Bord Fáilte, is also made available under this subhead. The final elements in the subhead relate to game development in a number of State forests and other minor expenses affecting the game development programme.
I am glad to say that the marked improvement in dealing with game council's schemes in consultation with the National Association of Regional Game Councils has been maintained and I am confident that the harmonious relations established with that organisation will help significantly towards improving and accelerating game development throughout the country.
As I have already mentioned, my Department and Bord Fáilte are jointly engaged in stimulating the development of shooting facilities for visiting sportsmen. A scheme is in operation whereby grants are made available to assist projects catering for out of State "guns", subject, of course, to the maintenance of high standards of sportsmanship. However, I should like to repeat that there can be no welcome for visitors—and particularly large groups—who arrive here for game shooting without first having made bona fide arrangements for their shooting holiday; and any hotel or agency which gives the impression to outsiders that there is an abundance of “free” game-shooting in this country is doing a major disservice to the tourist industry.
The need for strict control over people who come here to shoot—not only in relation to the numbers coming and the shooting pressure which they would exert but also as regards their general attitude to shooting in Ireland—is clearly recognised both by my Department and by Bord Fáilte.
Repeated criticism is heard—and some of it is probably well founded— of uncontrolled game shooting by visitors. This is an aspect on which the National Association of Regional Game Councils has been pressing for some remedial action and, following prolonged discussions with that organisation, I can now announce that special arrangements are being made with the Department of Justice regarding the issue of certain firearm certificates to visitors coming to this country.
Under the new system, visiting sportsmen will have to apply to my Department rather than to the Department of Justice for firearm certificates for shotguns and they will be required to furnish advance details of the arrangements made by them for their shooting holiday. The certificates will be issued by my Department, as agent of the Minister for Justice, only after the most careful assessment.
Moreover, as part of the revised arrangements, the existing facility whereby visitors on arrival could obtain shotgun certificates at customs posts on payment of the appropriate excise duty will be discontinued. These new arrangements will come into effect on 1st April, 1975 and will be well publicised both at home and abroad in advance of the operative date. The system will, I believe, go a long way towards eliminating the distrust which the native sportsman sometimes feels towards the visiting gun and will also hopefully enable more attractive shooting holidays to be made available to bona fide visitors.
Each year a game birds protection order is made setting out the open seasons for the various game species and also defining "no shooting" areas or sanctuaries. Following the 1974 order made by me on 5th July last, the number of such sanctuaries stands at 41. These are widely dispersed throughout the country and constitute an important element in the national wildlife conservation programme.
Subhead H is a Conservation Grant-in-Aid to meet the cost of projects approved of or undertaken by my Department or any other Department. There is as yet a substantial balance in the grant-in-aid account and while conservation projects currently being undertaken by my Department will involve a heavy financial commitment from these funds, it is not considered necessary, for the nine month period ending on 31st December next, to seek funds for this subhead on the same level as in recent years. Accordingly, a sum of £35,000 is proposed.
In addition to the increased number of sanctuaries—to which I have already referred—the Forest and Wildlife Service is engaged in a varied programme of wildlife conservation projects, including several major activities. In February last I had the pleasure of formally opening the first National Wildfowl Reserve on the North Slob in Wexford in the presence of a distinguished and representative international gathering. This reserve, which is internationally significant as the principal wintering ground of the Greenland whitefronted goose, is already attracting considerable attention from visitors; indeed, already this year some 10,000 people, including many from overseas, have visited the reserve. Development of Portumna Forest as a wildlife park, where people can appreciate at first hand and in natural surroundings the animals, especially deer, bird life and flora of the forest park, is progressing satisfactorily. The barnacle goose is the subject of a less ambitious project at Lissadell in County Sligo.
The research and educational aspects of wild life conservation are not being neglected. A survey has been carried out by Forest and Wildlife Service personnel of the conservation prospects of native woodlands, mainly oak, and practical measures aimed at promoting the natural regeneration of several oak woodlands are being introduced.
Other wildlife species which are subject to research by the Forest and Wildlife Service include deer and pine marten, and it is hoped to extend research to other species such as the otter and badger in the near future. Research on other species such as grouse, mallard, woodcock, peragrine falcon, squirrel and so on, is being undertaken by outside agencies for the Forest and Wildlife Service on a commission basis. The overall aim of these projects is to assemble maximum information on behaviour, food habits, population and distribution of these species with a view to ensuring their conservation in Ireland.
Financial assistance has again been given to conservation organisations in connection with their observation, survey and census work on certain species of wild birds. On the educational side, the annual series of weekend residential conservation courses for youth leaders at Avondale is being maintained with growing interest and new lecture aids have been provided. Information leaflets and booklets are being provided to meet the steady demand from teachers, school children and so forth for suitable literature.
New legislation to support the work already being done by my Department in the sphere of wildlife conservation and the envisaged expanded future programme, is a priority item. On 16th July last the first stage of the Wildlife Bill, 1974 was taken on long and short titles. I had hoped to circulate the Bill during the summer recess but drafting of this lengthy measure has proved more time-consuming than was expected. However, I am glad to say that this work has just now been completed and I expect to be in a position to circulate the text shortly with a view to having the Second Stage taken.
Subhead J, Appropriations-in-Aid, at a figure of £1,650,000 is the equivalent of a sum of £2,100,000 for a full year representing an increase of £572,000 over the 1973-74 Estimate for timber sales. At this stage we can be sure of reaching our target of receipts for the period but it is clear that the earlier buoyancy of the market for timber has disappeared and thus conditions are likely to be much more difficult during 1975.
I have already mentioned EEC directives in the area of agriculture and their possible impact on land acquisition and on private forestry. Deputies may be interested to know that, at present, a proposal for a Council directive concerning forestry measures is under consideration. In its present form the proposal offers little overall benefit in Irish conditions because of the emphasis which it places on subvention of private rather than State afforestation. This and various other aspects of the proposal are at present under examination by a working group of the Council at which our views on the extension of the proposal to cover State afforestation are being pressed. I would prefer not to outline in detail all the implications of the proposal at this stage when it is still under examination and open to substantial alterations or, indeed, rejection.
Finally, let me emphasise the importance of our forests not only to the present but to our future economy. In assessing Ireland's situation in the field of forestry we should realise that notwithstanding the heavy afforestation programme undertaken in recent years we are still the most lightly afforested country in the EEC and indeed in Europe. Bearing in mind that the entire EEC is heavily dependent on the importation of timber and timber products and will continue to be a net importer for the foreseeable future, the long term importance of our afforestation programme can be more readily appreciated.
In a world which has made heavy, if not prodigal use of its basic raw materials, timber is almost unique in being the renewable asset. Its availability in each generation depends on the foresight of their predecessors and on the willingness of successive generations to invest in the future.
Our Irish forests through direct and indirect impact already provide employment for 7,000 men. This is at a time when our ultimate State programme of afforestation is far from complete and when only about 20 per cent of our forests are producing material for industry. The potential of forestry to provide employment in ancillary fields in the context of a ready European market makes it essential that, whatever the temporary difficulties that beset us, we bend our efforts to maintaining the planting programme at present levels. You may be assured that, in so far as that is achievable, it will be my intention to do so.
